File talk:Challenger deep size comparison Mt Everest.JPG

Dog, this pic sucks.
 * Can't say I disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.80.106 (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, it seems to be inaccurate. It claims the Challenger Deep is only 10,924 meters deep and yet the side scale reaches to 12,000 meters deep. It's misleading at the very least. - Barhamd (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that before making any comment about that pic (particularly about its scale), read the article of BBC News that has been provided as a reference with that pic. nomi887 (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A large inaccuracy with this picture is the fact that the photo of Mt. Everest used certainly does not show its full height but just its height from the mountain base, which is in the high Himalayas and therefore several thousand meters high already. So what the photo actually shows is the top 4000-5000 meters of Everest, making the picture very misleading. JovanCormac (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the light in the water stops at around 150m, there would be no bubbles, bla bla - it's bad science, and poor journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.250.44 (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi nomi887 (talk)! The picture must be redesigned. First of all, the part from the left should have been cropped. We should see the sea level just like the camera would be one part in water and one part in air. You should take a distance view of Everest (maybe a distant panorama) and mix it with a more normal water background (not bubbles). It took me some time to understand what you want to transmit. Good luck with it! How come it's in the news section on the main page? --TudorTulok (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, (10924 - 8848) was 2076, not 1600. The difference between Everest & Challenger Deep should be more than 2k, not less, as shown in the picture. 195.101.40.45 (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The pic was posted to the article just in a sense as to give an idea about the deepness of Challenger deep without going in to any technicalities, so it should be treated like that only. nomi887 (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the general consensus here is that the picture has far too many problems to be outweighed by its EV. I therefore suggest it be removed from the article (and, much more important, the Main Page) ASAP or replaced by a more accurate picture. I found an interesting, similar but more accurate one at (of course, it is not a free image; it also has the same scale problem mentioned by 195.101.40.45). I consider it likely that our problem picture is in fact a poor attempt to emulate the WHOI picture. JovanCormac (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The first thread says, more succinctly and indeed more vulglarly, what it is that I came here to say. "Dog, this pic sucks." --Ambrosiaster (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the background looked familiar ... a little searching and I found that it appears to be identical to that found here:

http://www.vladstudio.com/wallpaper/?underwater2

Bummer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.95.9.165 (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JovanCormac that this picture is highly misleading. Since only the upper part of Everest is visible, the scale is completely inaccurate. If pictured correctly, the part of Everest that is shown would actually fit into a small portion of the Challenger Deep. This is not a "technicality"; the picture is completely wrong. -- Spireguy (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This picture got it famous for being wrong on a high accessed page: THE MAIN PAGE, having lot of fun with the picture but shall we solve the problem? Remake it? or.... anyway, the picture was good intentioned... --TudorTulok (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)